Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Places on the Road of St James[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, based on strength of argument and historical precedent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Being on these hiking trails is WP:NON-DEFINING for cities (e.g.  Mérida, Pamplona). We don't normally categorize towns/cities/districts etc by which (man-made) routes they are on (if we did then a city like Bristol would be categorized for 2 motorways, railways, canals, LEJOG ...).  Relevant previous discussions include  Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_1#Category:Way_of_St._James and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_30#Category:Camino_del_Cid.  Note: Some of these categories contain an eponymous article that may need to be upmerged to Category:Hiking trails in Spain.  Note: Currently this categorization is in rather a muddle (e.g. there are articles about trails under the places-on category). DexDor (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is inane. The EC recognized the unique nature of the Camino de Santiago in 1987 as it's First European Cultural Itinerary. Bristol is not unique being on motorways, roadways and canals. However, there are dozens of towns which have been on a unique pilgrimage path which has been walked by a billion people over the last 1200 years. While no one would say the A3 was unique among roadways, the Camino de Santiago (Road of St James) has determined the location, population, economic and spiritual life of dozens of towns for the past millenia and does so uniquely to this day. Three hundred thousand people walk this path every year and a million did annually during the middle ages. The towns of Hornillos del Camino, Sarria, Castrojeriz, Arzua and Puente la Reina all are in distinct provinces and yet all have been intimately shaped for the past millennia because they are on the Camino de Santiago. These towns should be grouped under one unique category to identify the cultural, religious and economic affects of this unique path. The sub-categories as listed identify sub-pathways, both historic and modern which provide additional experiences for pilgrims. All should be retained. JJ Hantsch 01:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)
  • There is a category for the Camino de Santiago. I have attempted to keep it as a super category with information about the historical, cultural and religious aspects of the pilgrimage (as well as the modern and medieval paths). Since this pilgrimage involves walking 800 plus kilometers and has affected dozens of towns along the way, I created a category to identify all those towns and include other specific sites associated with the different paths. Each specific subpath also has a subcategory to identify those along that path specifically. These towns were located where they are because of the path. The religious life of this region was defined by the Camino. The European Community recognized the uniqueness of this path and specifically marked the different paths in 1987. Unlike the A3 through Bristol, the Camino de Santiago was named as the EC's First European Cultural Itinerary. It is insipid to claim that permitting a category for towns who's foundation and entire life is dependent on the Camino should not be grouped together. JJ Hantsch 02:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Compare Bristol to Hornillos del Camino JJ Hantsch 02:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)
  • @Jjhantsch: Please use four tildes to place your signature, see WP:SIGNATURE. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I do. This message has four tildes. The result is as shown. JJ Hantsch 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange, your signature doesn't show a link to your user page and talk page, as it should. You might want to check WP:SIGHELP on how to fix this. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jjhantsch, your comment is rather WP:TLDR, but if you think that for Pamplona etc the foundation and entire life is dependent on the Camino then you've lost your sense of perspective. DexDor (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DexDor If you think that Santo Domingo de la Calzada, Hospital de Orbigo & Castrojeriz which all lie in separate provinces and where in distinct kingdoms for centuries have nothing in common then you have lost your perspective. JJ Hantsch 14:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DexDor But lets look at Pamplona, because you brought it up. Pamplona grew up with three neighborhoods. Two directly brought in and peopled by Camino, their descendants remain. The Kingdom of Navarre (Pamplona was the capital) maintained a long, thin shape (Roncesvalles-Pamplona-Puente la Reina-Viana) for 500 years. That is a week along the Camino and allowed Pamplona to have self rule for 500 years propped up by the French crown and/or the English one. Both uncommon but brought about by the Camino. The plague which the Festival of San Fermin celebrates deliverance from was carried in by pilgrims walking the Camino. The Cathedral of Pamplona, dedicated in 1127, was new fangled for the region but a scale copy of a French one about 250 km away, which was also along a Camino route. The fuero (agreement of government) which was granted to the medieval city was virtually identical to that of several others along the Camino, coordinating market days with other road towns, but not with other non-Camino towns. The last seven conquests of Pamplona were all directed along the Camino. The monasteries which fed the spiritual life of Pamplona for centuries were all founded on a pattern of settlement by the various orders along the Camino. But then again, I have walked through Pamplona four times and have my perspective based on the reality of Pamplona. Do you? JJ Hantsch 14:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete per nom as WP:NONDEF, and per many precedents that we do not categorise towns by whatever hiking trail, pilgrimage route, cycle path, road, railway line, air corridor or shipping route they happen to be located on. This applies even to places like Holyhead, whose existence is due almost entirely to its centuries-old role as the main seaport for passenger journeys from the island of Britain to the mainland of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another illegitimate comparison to a category which would have only a single member. JJ Hantsch 01:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)
A category for places on routes across the Irish Sea (if it was allowed) would have more than one member. DexDor (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So of course Ports and harbours on the English channel would be completely banned. JJ Hantsch 16:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)

  • Delete -- There are long precedents for deleting "Places on <long distance route>" categories, as they are in the nature of performance categories and create category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Peterkingiron Linking in a category sites in multiple nations which the EC recognized as their First European Cultural Itinerary more than 30 years ago would not seem to be clutter, but helpful. JJ Hantsch 19:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia users who received an invite to edit Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by substitutions of {{User:Subha WMF/Invite}}. It contains the user talk pages of 100+ users who received the "Do you need help?" notice during a single run on 24 April 2012. While the category may have served a purpose in the past, it is no longer useful to continue grouping these users based on a nearly 6-year-old notice. If kept, then rename to the shorter form, Category:Wikipedians who were invited to edit Wikipedia. (Pinging User:Psubhashish as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Falcon, thanks for bringing this to my notice. I believe it was when I was working at the WMF and the edits of concern could be archived/deleted now. Thanks. --Psubhashish (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate your confirmation that there is no longer an active need for this data. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Brunson, South Carolina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Town seems to have never had a population above 700, so the chances of a major influx of famous names seems remote. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Northeast Tennessee[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-standard and ambiguous way to segment Tennessee; see Grand Divisions of Tennessee. Alternatively, rename to Category:Wikipedians in East Tennessee. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I do not think the subarea of Tennessee is worthdividing for, especially since these are not legal subdivisions, and so lack clearly demarcated boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tenured Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "tenure" on Wikipedia, and thus no need for a grouping of "tenured" editors. I am concerned this could mislead newer editors into thinking users in this category have a privileged status. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Tenure where? We appear to have an ostrich and a cat. The latter (presumably actually a person) is said to be an admin but semi-retired and "no longer active". The whole thing is vacuous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IP addresses used by Wikipedia users[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: option C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More concise names. These categories are populated by {{IP address}}, {{ISP}}, {{Shared IP}}, {{Shared IP address (public)}}, {{Mobile IP}} and {{Static IP}}. The issue at hand here is not the type of page being categorized but rather what it represents (various types of IP accounts). I prefer option A, consistent with the use of "accounts" in Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak preference for option C, since that makes it more clear that it is of users rather than of the Wikipedia project. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Static IP addresses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary intermediate layer between Category:IP addresses used by Wikipedia users (parent) and Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of static IP addresses (child). There was a note in the template documentation of Template:Static IP stating the template places pages in this category; however, while this may have been the case at one time, currently the template only populates the child category. (Pinging User:Ronhjones as the category's creator) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long time ago, looks like I copied the layout of Category:Shared IP addresses and it's subcategories. I've no objections to a tidy up. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts (parent) and Category:Wikipedia doppelganger accounts (child). Also, per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions, Wikipedia is typically a prefix at the start of a title, used to denote the category is used for Wikipedia administration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unless these are accounts on "Alternative Wikipedia" Grutness...wha? 01:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_7&oldid=871692557"